this makes me wonder... how come galvanic isolation with high end DACs is not the norm?

Its from my perspective part of the problem because of this currently fashionable word 'galvanic' - meaning its DC isolation. But DC noise isn't the problem, AC is - isolation at RF is called for which is a different matter from isolation at DC.

Regarding CM noise measurements - I also recall seeing some on CA, they originated from ExaDevices I think.

__________________
'The total potential here must be nothing less than astronomical.'
'Nothing less. The number 10 raised almost literally to the power of infinity.'

Its from my perspective part of the problem because of this currently fashionable word 'galvanic' - meaning its DC isolation. But DC noise isn't the problem, AC is - isolation at RF is called for which is a different matter from isolation at DC.

That's the beauty of a solution based on magnetics (transformer) - it provides both DC isolation and a low-pass filter.

I guess some of us might be sourpusses enough to ask for some kind of proof of the validity of your theory...

Ah, yes, so the people selling the stuff report differences. Right....

Bah-humbug; here we go

Actually, there can be differences in cables, but they are identifiable and measurable. I don't need to elaborate on impedence around here, and reactance is measurable. There are EMR and RFI consideration in some cases. Differences when they are not born in a overly imaginary mind are real.

Actually, there can be differences in cables, but they are identifiable and measurable. I don't need to elaborate on impedence around here, and reactance is measurable. There are EMR and RFI consideration in some cases. Differences when they are not born in a overly imaginary mind are real.

I don't think anyone is claiming there aren't differences in cables - I think the disagreement is about the audibility of those differences...